ThatsWhyWeirChamps

This is probably a daft question, but what about the 16.24% which "are not in public hands"?

I assume it's just a figure which hasn't been updated. I think that's the shares subject to lock-in.

How do you reconcile that with this, Ally?

http://rangers.co.uk/news/academy-news/item/6147-kids-will-get-chance

I have more chance of playing in a title-winning Rangers squad than Emilson, why on earth would you play him ahead of one of our young players?

If Gasparotto is 5th or worse in the pecking order in League One, how can he reasonably be expected to move up as the team progresses?

Edit .

How can you not have an authorised share capital ? So any shares that have ever been issued were unauthorised ?

 

From my limited knowledge of Companies House and the Companies Act I thought you cant issue shares without there being authorised shares to issue. You need a resolution and form filling with Companies House. The authorised share capital also tells you the MAXIMUM that you can issue.

 

It is the first I have heard that you dont have to have authorised share capital.

 

Educate me please.

http://www.companylawclub.co.uk/topics/authorised_capital.shtml

The requirement to have an authorised share capital is abolished from 1.10.2009 when the Companies Act 2006 finally came into full effect. Any company registered from that date will have no restriction on the number of shares it can issue, unless a limit is set in the company's articles.

http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/share-information

The Ordinary Shares are freely transferable and no Ordinary Shares are held in treasury.

So was the authorised share capital of the company changed post-IPO?

Pretty certain there's no requirement to have an authorised share capital.

That doesn't actually answer any of the questions that I asked in the post that you quoted. Unissued shares don't, by definition, exist.

 

Are they still included in the authorised share capital of the company?

There aren't any unissued shares. 0. None.

This is an avenue which was already investigated by an RST board member.

Pretty sure it also says there aren't any shares held in treasury on the Shares page of the official website.

So you are saying that the authorised share capital of the company was changed after the IPO? Would that not require an ordinary resolution at an AGM and Companies House to be notificed?

 

Or are you saying that the shares available at the time of the IPO are no longer available but are still included in the authorised share capital of the company?

The available shares, which were unsubscribed, were scrapped. At no point post-IPO (when the shares became reality) did the shares exist.

yeah i remember that but what did it mean?

 

frankly i wouldn't be surprised if the board were lying about the unissued shares to the rst.

 

the less fans with shares the better as far as that lot are concerned.

It means they have the right to have a share issue, but not the right to have it closed off to only one or two individuals.

Which means they can't just sell shares to Sandy Easdale at 1p/pop and they can't just offer shares to Dave King either. The entire shareholding base has to be given the right to an quitable increase in their existing holding before anyone like King can be offered shares.

what about resolutions 9 and 10 was it at the agm?

 

the power to issue new shares.

Only one of them passed.

Just to confuse matters more I thought that the right to issue them lapsed on the anniversary of the IPO.

It would. It's a power which has to be renewed at each AGM, is it not? In any case, there aren't any unissued shares.

Maybe it's just the wording used. Forlan says he thought that the right to issue them lapsed. Perhaps that's what TWWC means by forfeited?

The unsubsubcribed shares were scrapped. At no point was RIFC plc carrying unissued shares post-IPO. An RST board member has already previously tried to go down that route post-IPO.

That is not correct. Every new company has authorised "Stock Capital" which it sells (but only a % if it) on start up,. The % not sold at that time is the unissued capital. This is done so that if the company needs an injection of cash at some time in the future it has the unissued capital to fall back on. A company is not allowed to magic up new shares out of the sky.

The board responsible for the listing forfeited the balance of 11m shares which were unsubscribed.

I repeat; there are no unissued shares.

*

I know there are those who are reluctant to re-sign old players, but Boyd has proven he can score the goals to win you titles. I'd have him back. He wouldn't cost much and he's actually a better player than the one who left.

We are not in the position to think that £60K is a drop in the ocean and it's better in the club's hands than a faceless shareholder's.

 

I wasn't referring to a share issue. It's possible for there to be a mechanism for unissued shares from the last share issue to be issued. It was done when the RST's Gersave payment was made. It would need the club to do it and it's probably too late now, so outside of the RST's control.

 

Another option is to hold onto the cash at the moment, waiting for the next share issue, which many are saying will happen in the near future.

There aren't any unissued shares.

This is good news. Well done to the RST board, and long may it continue.

then this will just prop up spivs and make them rich i am afraid.

 

i know tthats not your fault but it is a concern. it would be great if a new issue of shares could be arranged. or the unsold ones from the ipo similar to sdm making them available previously.

That stance makes no sense to me.

Is them not being rich more important than the long-term success and sustainability of the Club?

Any new share issue must be offered to existing shareholders first, that means the "spivs" (really dislike that word) get the chance to proportionally increase their holding before anyone else gets the chance - including King.

There won't be a new share issue until the controlling shareholding block can find a way to hedge their losses. That will be in the form of a director, or connected party loan secured over Ibrox. As an example, they will loan the Club £2.5m with a £2.5m arrangement fee to be repaid when ST money comes in, or repaid across the year or across two lots of ST money etc. Either way, there's pretty much no benefit to having a share issue for the controlling shareholding block at this stage.

For me, worrying about them getting rich is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted and went on to live a full life before dying of old age. That ship has sailed and subsequently been decommissioned. The second we allowed these shareholders to buy the Club, them making money one way or another was guaranteed. It may be unpalatable to some to buy shares from them, but the fact remains they bought the Club,

The only shareholders remaining who got shares for less than 50p is McCoist, so right now each and every single shareholder is sitting on a loss - the BPH consotrium included.

Fans have to step up, and ggrab a greater say in the Club. We have to make sure that the long-term success of the Club is at the forefront of everything the Board are doing and that share price is a distant second.

what shares are going to be purchased with this projected 6 million?

Any shares that become available? If the money is there, you can start to seek out shareholders to buy from too. And failing that, you can buy the proxy of institutions until more shares do become available.

In any case who, when and where they are bought from is irrelevant, what's important is who buys them. That should be fans and it's fantastic to see guys like Gough and Rae take an interest in it.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/former-rangers-players-gough-and-rae-back-scheme-to-hand-clubs-supporters-power-at-ib.1392030197

 

Richard Gough and Alex Rae have become the first two former Rangers players to back a scheme that could hand the club's supporters power at Ibrox.

 

Representatives of the club's support have been invited to hear a presentation from Supporters Direct Scotland on how they could set about launching a bid for "greater fan ownership".

 

SDS has already helped supporters of Dunfermline and Hearts successfully arrange deals to take control of their clubs and believe the Rangers faithful could be the next to grab a greater say in how their club is run.

 

They will discuss the vision at a meeting at the Louden Tavern, Ibrox, on February 14 and have already won the backing of nine-in-a-row captain Gough.

 

The former Scotland defender said: "The fans are the heart and soul of Rangers Football Club and one sure way to guarantee that this remains the case at Rangers forever is for the fans to collectively have more power in the club.

 

"As we are a PLC, fans collectively owning shares is in my opinion one way to ensure this, and the more they own the louder their voice.

 

"I therefore look forward to hearing what comes out of this meeting on the 14th and hope it move the cause of fan involvement forward at Ibrox."

 

Former Gers midfielder Rae - who helped the Glasgow giants land the 2005 Scottish Premier League title - has also indicated his support.

 

"When I go to Ibrox I hear the Rangers fans singing 'Four men had a dream' about the men who founded the club," he said. "Well the many thousands of Rangers Fans can now make that dream a reality again by gathering together with the single issue of collectively owning their club.

 

"That is why I look forward to hearing what comes from the meeting of the 14th and look forward to supporting the next step."

 

It is understood that SDS has drawn up a blueprint that will see a Community Interest Company formed which will then collect monthly contributions from fans.

 

It will be based broadly on the same model which has put the Foundation of Hearts group in poll position to rescue the administration-hit Jambos.

 

Head of SDS Paul Goodwin spoke last week of how a scheme with around 25,000 supporters handing over around £20 a month would give them £6million after 12 months.

 

The current Ibrox share-price has fallen to 25.75p - a huge drop on the 70p launch price.

 

The Foundation of Hearts announced last week it had struck a deal with majority shareholder UBIG to take control of their 78.97 per cent stake in the Jambos. The Gorgie bid is backed by more than 7,500 fans each making a monthly donation.

 

SDS is also currently working with fan groups and boards at Motherwell, Ayr United and Annan Athletic as they bid help take those clubs into community ownership.

 

Rangers announced a £14.4million loss for the 13-month period up to June with reports suggesting the club is still losing £1million a month.

 

The club's AGM just before Christmas saw angry shareholders lining up to criticise the Ibrox board for their handling of the club's affairs.

 

Last month, the first-team players rejected a proposed 15 per cent pay cut while chief executive Graham Wallace has started a 120-day review of the League One leaders' operations after admitting spending is out of control.

Where have I given my 'side' in this? I've already said I would not comment but others are playing a bit fast and loose with what they present as facts here so maybe I will comment. As for comparing us and the Foundation of Hearts it is laughable. It would be more appropriate to compare it to the RFFF than the RST.

I'm happy to say nothing. As I've said, I don't want it to be about personalities. But so long as there are people questioning mine, and guys I would call my friends' morality, calling us liars, calling us deceitful, duplicitous and all other manner of insults then I'm afraid I have no choice but to prove that's not true.

Not calling conspiracy or getting into this, but I know that the chair didn't know of any CIC company until September, after it was registered, and NDA. The contacting of folk like AJ and PM were all done without the knowledge of the board and chairman. No progress updates either were forthcoming. Even when documents were forwarded in October there was still no official presentation.

The CIC certification is dated 4th of October. The Secretary and Chair were briefed on the process on the 7th of September. Prior to that, it was a basic ltd company which was about to apply for CIC status.

As I've been saying, this is a pointless trail of information anyway, formation of a CIC is part of the exploratory process which the RST board tasked them with. The CIC in question is obsolete.

As part of that briefing, and previous briefings, they were informed that lawyers were about to start seeking out potential investors. As per the below dated 7th of September.

(Secretary), see the email trail below. As we will be contacting some of the targets this week it is important that you and (Chair) are aware of where we are.

 

 

 

Attached:

 

1. Investor appetiser

 

2. The targets

 

3. For your file – Articles of Association & Memorandum of Association, Cert of inc, CI Statement, Share Cert

 

4. Letter of comfort for RST from me

 

 

 

Two important profiles from the (Law Firm) team:

 

 

 

1) (-------)

 

2) (-------)

 

 

 

Any questions let me now.

 

 

 

with regards

 

 

 

(board member)

We can keep going round in circles, but there's really nothing underhand to be found.

If you're going to do nothing - say nothing.

At least if you say nothing he can continue to be listed as a deranged, bigoted crack-pot. Releasing this statement did nothing but validate him.

Also, as I mentioned on Twitter earlier, just how brilliant would a "Treble" be?

Perhaps the best wind-up for a long time if we manage it!

Massive opportunity for us. Up there with our greatest triumphs if we can pull it off.

The draw has been incredibly favourable, and I only hope we can take our chances.

ICT and Dundee Utd being drawn together is good for us, and I also have a sneaking suspicion that Dumbarton might knock Aberdeen out too. Aberdeen's cup record against lower division sides is atrocious. I'm not banking on it, but I just have a feeling.

In any case, I'd fancy us at Ibrox against any of the remaining sides. McCoist has a real chance to further etch his name into the history books. This has been a very good weekend for Rangers - perhaps the most positive since before admin even.

WATP!

You keep answering questions that I did not ask. A straight yes or no would have sufficed. No point me asking again, you seem intent on playing with words.

As I said I hope we end up with fan representation/ownership.

I'm giving you the relevant facts.

But here's what you're being asked to believe;

An exploratory committee was instigated by the RST board. And the 4 board members tasked's only intention was to ditch the RST.

That exploratory committee of 4 people got another 5 or so individuals involved to hep with this process (all RST members).

Their strategy for doing that, incredibly, was to get the 5 individuals to join the RST board (this is the one I find particularly baffling). Some rather reluctantly.

Being fully informed, the Chair and Secretary played an active part in this "conspiracy".

They set up a CIC with the RST listed as the ultimate benficiary, but intended to go away and do things for themselves all along.

The argument is disjointed, and makes absolutely no sense.

I'm not trying to make people decide based on personalities, I want people to be informed and make a decision based on whether they think it's achieveable and whether they think it's best for the Club.

If you're interested in fan ownership, then all that's asked is you listen to what SDS are suggesting. That's all. There's no complicated deceit and back-stabbing.

You don't have to explain how a CIC is set up, I am well aware of the procedure.

I repeat my question to you. Did the RST board discuss and agree that the setting up of a CIC was the way forward? Or did your group set it up without discussion with the other RST board members? Surely the answers will be in the RST board minutes?

 

Not sure who this one person is so therefore cant say if I've spoken to that person or not. I can say that I have spoken to more than one person involved and trust their version of events.

 

if at the end of the day we end up with fans representation/ownership I will be very happy but I like to know the calibre of the people involved.

I just told you that the Chair and the Secretary were briefed. Seems like the worst cover-up of all time if you ask me.

You seem to be making the same mistake as the person in question and overstating the siginificance of a now superseded CIC. It was formed as part of the exploratory process, the Chair and Secretary were briefed - as was the process for the group - the Chair and Secretary were sent all relevant documentation along with a letter of comfort. Again, if the object was to deceive and go behind the RST's back, why bother keeping the Chair and Secretary up to date? Why list the ultimate benficiary as the RST?

If it was determined that the CIC wasn't the way forward (and the CIC which was formed WON'T be under any circumstances - because it is limited by shares and not by guarantee), then the company could quite simply be wound-up, as will now probably be the case. It was vital to the process which the group was tasked with that they fully understood what a CIC could do. I'd say corresponding with the CIC regulator on the process is probably the most vital part of that - but what do I know?

If you're going to continue to look for conspiracy, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. The process and model being suggested by SD would be EXACTLY the same regardless of whether the CIC group were still RST board members or not - that we aren't is a complete red-herring.

Please inform me and others what I have said that is untrue. I did say that the CIC company registration was before you joined the RST board. Where you not aware of this? Have you asked your colleagues about it?

I was part of the CIC "group" before I joined the RST board, so I'm perfectly aware of and have a personal record of the Secretary and Chair receiving constant updates on progress and next steps. (another question worth asking yourself is why would I bother joining the RST board if the intention was to "deceive" and go behind the RST's back? Wouldn't I simply avoid those circumstances by not joining in the first place?)

I don't want to pre-empt the upcoming meeting by revealing lots of information which is now outdated and superseded, because it will present a confusing message, but some time after everyone in the support is perfectly aware of the model suggested by SD, I will reveal the information provided.

The formation of a CIC is all part of the exploratory process, finding out the hows and whys. But even still;, here's the process to form a CIC:

You first have to form a company. You then have to write to the CIC regulator with a Community Interest Statement - outlining the Community you wish to serve and the purpose/goals of the company.

The CIC certification was received at the beginning of October and the Chair and Secretary were briefed on it by email (and, I'd guess, probably by phone even before that) on the 7th of September.

The idea there was some active level of deceit is pure fantasy being peddled by one individual. As I've been saying all along, there is nobody on the CIC group with any axe to grind with the RST. The reasons for leaving had absolutely nothing to do with the pursuit of the CIC either.